Marriage is not redefined, simply extended to same-sex couples and their families. FAIL

By getting rid of gender integration standards in marriage, marriage is redefined by gender segregation marriage. Extending marriage to unqualified parties changes standards for everyone, so gender diversity would no longer be required in marriage.

From the DOMA oral arguments:MR. CLEMENT: "A couple of responses, Justice Kagan. First of all, I think I would take issue with the premise, first of all, that this is such an unusual Federal involvement on an issue like marriage. If you look at historically, not only has the Federal government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular -- particular programs, it's also intervened in -- in other areas, including in-State prerogatives. I mean, there's a reason that 4 State constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them. There is a reason that, in the wake of the Civil War and in Reconstruction, Congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaves who fought for the Union.

In order to do it, it essentially had to create State law marriages because in the Confederacy, the slaves couldn't get married. So they developed their own State -- essentially, a Federal, sort of, condition to define who was married under those laws. So where there was the needs in the past to get involved, the Federal government has got involved.

The other point I would make -- but I also eventually want to get around to the animus point -- but the other point I would make is, when you look at Congress doing something that is unusual, that deviates from the way they -- they have proceeded in the past, you have to ask, well, was there good reason? And in a sense, you have to understand that, in 1996, something's happening that is, in a sense, forcing Congress to choose between its historic practice of deferring to the States and its historic practice of preferring uniformity.

Up until 1996, it essentially has it both ways, every State has the traditional definition. Congress knows that's the definition that's embedded in every Federal law. So that's fine. We can defer...

KAGAN: Well, is what happened in 1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House Report here -- is that "Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

Is that what happened in 1996?

MR. CLEMENT: Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. But that has never been your approach, especially under rational basis or even rational basis-plus, if that is what you are suggesting.

This Court, even when it's to find more heightened scrutiny, the O'Brien case we cite, it suggests, look, we are not going to strike down a statute just because a couple of legislators may have had an improper motive. We're going to look, and under rational basis, we look, is there any rational basis for the statute?

And so sure, the House Report says some things that we are not -- we've never invoked in trying to defend the statute.

But the House Report says other things, like Congress was trying to promote democratic self-governance. And in a situation where an unelected State judiciary in Hawaii is on the verge of deciding this highly contentious, highly divisive issue for everybody, for the States -- for the other States and for the Federal government by borrowing principle, it makes sense for Congress -

The Federal Government has made regulations of marriage before:From the DOMA oral arguments:MR. CLEMENT: "A couple of responses, Justice Kagan. First of all, I think I would take issue with the premise, first of all, that this is such an unusual Federal involvement on an issue like marriage. If you look at historically, not only has the Federal government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular -- particular programs, it's also intervened in -- in other areas, including in-State prerogatives. I mean, there's a reason that 4 State constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them. There is a reason that, in the wake of the Civil War and in Reconstruction, Congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaves who fought for the Union.In order to do it, it essentially had to create State law marriages because in the Confederacy, the slaves couldn't get married. So they developed their own State -- essentially, a Federal, sort of, condition to define who was married under those laws. So where there was the needs in the past to get involved, the Federal government has got involved.The other point I would make -- but I also eventually want to get around to the animus point -- but the other point I would make is, when you look at Congress doing something that is unusual, that deviates from the way they -- they have proceeded in the past, you have to ask, well, was there good reason? And in a sense, you have to understand that, in 1996, something's happening that is, in a sense, forcing Congress to choose between its historic practice of deferring to the States and its historic practice of preferring uniformity.Up until 1996, it essentially has it both ways, every State has the traditional definition. Congress knows that's the definition that's embedded in every Federal law. So that's fine. We can defer...

Oh, SNORE!

AS if you aren't BORING enough, now resorting to endless cut and pastes? Thank the LORD I have plans all day and won't be subject to your dreary endless posts.

The "federal issue" of marriage goes back much farther. Research: The 65-year battle over the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act [URL deleted]

Further than that, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862. The act banned polygamy by making it punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Bigamy is banned but same sex marriage is punished nowhere in the fifty states.

<quoted text>Further than that, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862. The act banned polygamy by making it punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Bigamy is banned but same sex marriage is punished nowhere in the fifty states.

Yet you yourself often point out that Same Sex marriage is actually banned and therefore punished in over 29 States.

<quoted text>Further than that, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862. The act banned polygamy by making it punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Bigamy is banned but same sex marriage is punished nowhere in the fifty states.

We have had this discussion before, but I suppose you have forgotten. To ban something doesn't always make it CRIMINAL.

Let's look at the dictionary, once again. Not a think in there about prison time.

Clement:...The last point I would simply make is in thinking about animus, think about the fact that Congress asked the Justice Department three times about the constitutionality of the statute. That's not what you do when you are motivated by animus. The first two times they got back the answer it was constitutional. The third time, they asked again in the wake of Romer, and they got the same answer, it's constitutional.

Now the Solicitor General wants to say, well, it was want of careful reflection? Well, where do we get careful reflection in our system? Generally, careful reflection comes in the democratic process. The democratic process requires people to persuade people.

The reason there has been a sea change is a combination of political power, as defined by this Court's cases as getting the attention of lawmakers, certainly they have that. But it's also persuasion. That's what the democratic process requires. You have to persuade somebody you're right. You don't label them a bigot. You don't label them as motivated by animus. You persuade them you are right.

That's going on across the country. Colorado, the State that brought you Amendment 2, has just recognized civil unions. Maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way....

Clement:...The last point I would simply make is in thinking about animus, think about the fact that Congress asked the Justice Department three times about the constitutionality of the statute.......

So, he didn't answer the animus question at all, just deflected it.

He knew that Kagan was absolutely right. It's in the NAME of the document, and was placed in writing by the people that promoted it.

And the constitutionality of it is what is being ruled on NOW. It wasn't, back when it was enacted. If the current opinion of the Justice Department, and the President who signed were taken as law now, DOMA would already be dead.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.